All throughout the past century, people have been experimenting in all forms of art; pushing the boundaries of what can and cannot be considered art. If a toilet holds some artistic value to someone, could it be placed in a museum? Should a painting of a can of soup be considered high art? What is the deal with that William Williams guy's "Red Wheelbarrow" poem, anyway?

Unavoidably, this extends to music. We've seen people like John Cage come in and say that 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence is worthy of a concert hall. We get odd stuff like this thing (http://www.mode.com/samples/069HarrietTubman.mp3), claiming to be "high art."

So basically, I'm curious. How do you define "music?" What are its requirements, it's taboos, etc.? Can a lawnmower buzz, if it holds artistic value to someone, be considered music? What makes a symphony any different?

(Some of these answers may seem obvious, but, really, they're just samples, not specific questions. I'm trying to set your mind ablaze with opinions and whatnot.)

I see music as, simply, an extension of our emotions-- an alternative to expressing ourselves. Any piece of music that conveys a certain emotion or message, whether highly specific or overly ambiguous, deserves to be recognized as music and, ultimately, a work of art.

Music is, by a BASIC definition, simply organized sound and silence.

That's all fine and good, deathraider, but Pyramus asked specifically for how YOU define music. Surely you don't go strictly by the book? ^^;

True...I think that the most important requirement for music is that is has SOME kind of structure. After all, to incorporate my previous definition, music is a combination of organized sound and silence. However, there is also a difference between a broad defenition of 'music' and something 'musical.' A truly musical performance has all the emotion that the performer can muster to put into it, and it also HELPS to be played well. I believe there is a big difference between 'music' and 'music to one's ears,' too.

Seeing as how not all music has emotion, and not all music is organized in a structural form . . I'll have to get back to you on a definition.

Right. What sort of emotion would an ad jingle hope to acheive? Yet surely, some would consider that music in it's basest form. Some music simply exists; background music, or stage music, for example. While these may not be art, would they still be music? What level?

I find these sorts of quesitons extremely tricky to answer, and usually just cope out by saying "I don't know;" however, it's absolutely fascinating for me to cogitate.

Artistic expression which relays emotions? A jingle could relay emotions like happiness, freedom, etc.

hm..it's a tough question. Spiritually music is emotion, passion and desire. The true purpose of "classical music" (music of the past), is to simply entertain, like sports. Music as evolved from an entertainment poitn of view to a more of a disiplinary activity. A lot of people believe that musicians or classical music fans are considered disciplined, honest, and mature.

Definition of Music in my point of view is a notion of spreading an emotion across to the listener, thus stimulating the audience's emotions and basically appeals to the pathos element.

When you are talking about a Jingle however, i believe a Jingle can only be powerful if words are put into it. Jingle in my opinion is music, but serve a different purpose than all us music lovers. It serves to advertise, how? by getting the music stuck in our head. Like that "I'm Loving it" commercial of McDonalds, everyone knows that, even people who doesn't speak english!

Anyways, i don't really know how to answer that question, and this is all i got at the moment

Well, I myself would define music as a written piece with some "noise" in it. I mean, if music was just something that related to emotions, then jingles, or pieces that kind of just go along and has no meaning in it, could not be included in the catogory of "music". I believe you can define music as you can define colors, or singing. Someone might opinionate that something is really singing when another disagrees. And with colors, you can actually define music with coloring. Like, if you were trying to catogorize the "Harriet Tubman" song-thing (BTW, the background bass was fantastic, just he violin and singing were extraordinarily bizzare) into a color, it'd most likely be a sharp, odd coloring that you don't see very often. It's still a color, you see, just different. Another example is, let's take Beethoven's "Symphony 5", would probably be a bold, sharp color. It's used in everyday life, it just has a spark in it that's different from what you see everyday. I would say "Symphony 5" would probably be a deep red violet. But the colors of music can change, depending on the perspective the person listening to it. You might disagree with me on my opinion of the coloring of "Symphony 5" and "Harriet Tubman", but that simply just reflects your opinion. Music can also relate to people too. Some people like a certain person, some don't. The quality the music shows to some people may be obstructed by the obvious qualities to others. To judge music, to put it simply, you must have a perspective, an open mind, and ears to listen with (well, not necessarily, but you get what I mean).

OMFG! That song scared the shit out of me! :eek:

Anyways, I think music is an arrangement of sounds and silences that's pleasing to the ear (something that song didn't quite do @_@ ).

Abstract Question:

Hmm... Is music sound/silence or is it a set of abstract qualities we associate with sound/silence?

Slightly more specific version:

Sheet music. Do you have to actually transform it into sound-patterns to make it music?

Thought experiment:

Someone's born deaf. Now, obviously, they could still plot down notes on sheets according to "rules" of harmony, rhythm etc. Do they create music, although they do not have the means to ever appreciate the "intonation" of what they've plotted down on paper?

music is what you make it.

From my fav site- Wikipedia:

Music is often defined by contrast with noise or speech. Some definitions of music place it explicitly within a cultural context by defining music as what people accept as musical.

Broadly, here are some groups of definitions:

* Those that define music as an external, physical fact, for example "organized sound", or as a specific type of perception
* Those that label it, according to context, as a social construction or subjective experience
* Those that label it as an artistic process or product, with the related psychological phenomena
* Those that seek a platonic or quasi-platonic ideal of music which is not rooted in specifically physical or mental terms, but in a higher truth.

The definition of music as sound with particular characteristics is taken as a given by psychoacoustics, and is a common one in musicology and performance. In this view, there are observable patterns to what is broadly labeled music, and while there are understandable cultural variations, the properties of music are the properties of sound as perceived and processed by people.

Traditional philosophies define music as tones ordered horizontally (as melodies) and vertically (as harmonies). Music theory, within this realm, is studied with the presupposition that music is orderly and often pleasant to hear.

John Cage is the most famous advocate of the idea that anything can be music, saying, for example, "There is no noise, only sound," though some argue that this somewhat fascistically imposes the definition on everything. According to musicologist Jean-Jacques Nattiez (1990 p.47-8,55): "The border between music and noise is always culturally defined--which implies that, even within a single society, this border does not always pass through the same place; in short, there is rarely a consensus.... By all accounts there is no single and intercultural universal concept defining what music might be."

In support of the view that music is a label for a totality of different aspects which are culturally constructed. Often a definition of music lists the aspects or elements that make up music. Molino (1975: 43) argues that, in addition to a lack of consensus, "any element belonging to the total musical fact can be isolated, or taken as a strategic variable of musical production." Nattiez gives as examples Mauricio Kagel's Con Voce [with voice], where a masked trio silently mimes playing instruments. In this example sound, a common element, is excluded, while gesture, a less common element, is given primacy.

The platonic ideal of music is currently the least fashionable in the philosophy of criticism and music, because it is crowded on one side by the physical view - what is the metasubstance of music made of, if not sound? - and on the other hand by the constructed view of music - how can one tell the difference between any metanarrative of music and one which is merely intersubjective? However, its appeal, finding unexpected mathematical relationships in music, and finding analogies between music and physics, for example string theory, means that this view continues to find adherents, including such critics and performers as Charles Rosen and Edward Rothstein.

pwn'd

In my opinion music is a "sound", "noise", or even "silence" that moves/ entertains atleast one person in some way.

but does it have to entertain? it could be made for the sole purpose of creating a feeling of uneasiness and akes people not want to listen to it.

For me, music is music. No way am I going to "define" it. It's just there, and let's all just enjoy it.